↓ Skip to main content

State-of the art methodologies dictate new standards for phylogenetic analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
State-of the art methodologies dictate new standards for phylogenetic analysis
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-13-161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Anisimova, David A Liberles, Hervé Philippe, Jim Provan, Tal Pupko, Arndt von Haeseler

Abstract

The intention of this editorial is to steer researchers through methodological choices in molecular evolution, drawing on the combined expertise of the authors. Our aim is not to review the most advanced methods for a specific task. Rather, we define several general guidelines to help with methodology choices at different stages of a typical phylogenetic 'pipeline'. We are not able to provide exhaustive citation of a literature that is vast and plentiful, but we point the reader to a set of classical textbooks that reflect the state-of-the-art. We do not wish to appear overly critical of outdated methodology but rather provide some practical guidance on the sort of issues which should be considered. We stress that a reported study should be well-motivated and evaluate a specific hypothesis or scientific question. However, a publishable study should not be merely a compilation of available sequences for a protein family of interest followed by some standard analyses, unless it specifically addresses a scientific hypothesis or question. The rapid pace at which sequence data accumulate quickly outdates such publications. Although clearly, discoveries stemming from data mining, reports of new tools and databases and review papers are also desirable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Germany 6 2%
Brazil 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 268 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 27%
Researcher 71 23%
Student > Master 30 10%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 24 8%
Other 48 16%
Unknown 20 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 188 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 15%
Computer Science 9 3%
Environmental Science 7 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 2%
Other 18 6%
Unknown 32 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2016.
All research outputs
#805,029
of 20,419,783 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#152
of 2,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,352
of 174,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,419,783 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 174,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them